Suggested answer:

PAULO JACKSON POLANGCOS y FRANCISCO
vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 239866.   September 11, 2019.*

⚖️👨‍⚖️ 𝗖𝗔𝗚𝗨𝗜𝗢𝗔, 𝗝

Issue:
Whether the RTC and the CA erred in convicting P.

Ruling:

The petition is meritorious.
The CA manifestly overlooked the undisputed fact that the seized item was confiscated from P as he was being issued a traffic violation ticket.
His violations consisted of (1) not having a plate number, and (2) expired official receipt (OR) and certificate of registration (CR) of the motorcycle he was riding.

P's main violation or the violation for which he was apprehended, was punishable only by a city ordinance that prescribes as [penalty the fine] of P500.00.
Ps’ second violation — having expired OR and CR for the motorcycle — is likewise[punishable only by fine].

In view of the foregoing, SPO2 J thus, conducted an illegal search when he frisked P for the foregoing violations which were [punishable only by fine].

He had no reason to “arrest” P because the
latter’s violation did [not] entail a penalty of [i]mprisonment.
It was, thus, [not], as it could not have been, a search incidental to a lawful arrest as there was no, as there could not have been any, lawful arrest to speak of.

In the very recent case of People v. Cristobal, (Cristobal) the driver of the motorcycle was flagged because he was not wearing a helmet, and he did not have in his possession the OR and CR of the motorcycle. The accused therein was then frisked to search for a deadly weapon, butthe police officers did not find any. The apprehending officer thereafter noticed that there was a bulge in the pocket of his pants, so the officer asked the accused toremove the thing in his pocket. When the accused obliged, it was then revealed that the thing in his pocket was a small plastic bag containing seven sachets of shabu. The accused was then charged with Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, similar to Polangcos in this case.
When the case reached the Court, the accused was acquitted as the Court found that the seized items were borne of an illegal search.

The Court similarly held that the search was unlawful because it was not preceded by a valid arrest. As the violations of the accused therein were only punishableby [fine], the Court ruled that there was [no reason] to arrest the accused, and, as a consequence, no valid arrest preceded the search thereafter conducted.

Accordingly, the Court held that the accused therein must be acquitted asthe evidence against him was rendered inadmissible by the exclusionary rule provided under the Constitution.

The case of Cristobal squarely applies to this case. There was likewise no valid arrest to speak of in this case — as
P's violations were also punishable by fine only —and there could, thus, be no valid “search incidental to lawful arrest.”

Parenthetically, it must be pointed out that the CA erred in equating the validity of the arrest of P with the admissibility of the evidence used against him.
[While] the CA was [correct] in ruling that “any objection, defect or irregularity attending an arrest must be made before the accused enters his plea on arraignment,” the said principle, [however], would [not] apply to P’s contention that "the evidence used to convict him wasinadmissible." P's argument was [not only] that he was  illegally  arrested,  [but  that  he  was  also] wrongfully convicted because the evidence used againsthim was inadmissible.

The Court, thus, stresses that any evidence seized as a result of searches and seizures conducted in violation of Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution is inadmissible “for any purpose in any proceeding” in accordance with the exclusionary rule in Section 3(2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution.

No consented search.

It bears emphasis, however, that “[e]vidence to be believed must [not only] proceed from the mouth of a credible witness [but it must] be credible in itself, such as the [common experience and observation] of mankind can approve as probable under the circumstances.”

In contrast to this, the testimony of SPO2 J as to the circumstances surrounding thediscovery of the seized item does not inspire belief.
For one, common sense dictates that if a person indeed carries contraband in his possession, then he would try, as much as possible, to hide the said item. Here, SPO2 Juntanilla claimed that P voluntarily andwithout instigation took off his cap which allegedly contained the plastic sachet. It does not make sense, however, for P todo the said act if it was true that he was hiding illegal drug in the said cap. Why would Polangcos incriminate himselfand remove the cap if he knew that the cap was containing contraband?
Moreover, there is serious doubt as to whether P was really even wearing a cap during his apprehension. This is because SPO2 Juntanilla himself testified that Polangcos’ violations were only, to repeat: (1) not having a plate number; and (2) expired OR and CR of the motorcycle he was riding.
SPO2 J never suggested or asserted thatP was not wearing a helmet. If P wasnot violating RA 10054 — and was therefore wearing a helmet — at the time of his apprehension, then how couldhe have worn a cap and a helmet at the same time?

The foregoing makes the circumstances surrounding the supposed discovery of the seized item, as well as the ensuing arrest of Polangcos, highly doubtful. The Courtcannot, therefore, rely on the same to establish that P consented to the search conducted on him.

PAULO JACKSON POLANGCOS y FRANCISCO
vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 239866.   September 11, 2019.*
⚖️👨‍⚖️ 𝗖𝗔𝗚𝗨𝗜𝗢𝗔, 𝗝

Case digest:
👉
https://dlslink.net/4d97f1a8

𝙃𝙤𝙬 𝙩𝙤 𝙨𝙪𝙥𝙥𝙤𝙧𝙩 𝙪𝙨?

𝙎𝙪𝙥𝙥𝙤𝙧𝙩-𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙠 𝙜𝙪𝙞𝙙𝙚:
https://pastelink.net/erm3x2a6

𝙂𝙚𝙩𝙏𝙝𝙖𝙩𝘽𝙖𝙧222/𝙃𝙚𝙡𝙥 𝙜𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙥
https://www.facebook.com/groups/431904274452632/?ref=share